Remarks by the President at a National Senatorial Committee Reception
The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, D.C.

11:53 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thanks for coming. Please be seated. (Applause.)
I appreciate you being here. On the way down, Mr. McConnell said, keep
it short, they haven't had their food yet. (Laughter.)

But I want to thank you all for coming. As you well know, we're
heading down the stretch here in this important political season. I
want to thank you for helping our Senate candidates. It means a lot. I
don't know about you, but I am absolutely confident that Mitch McConnell
will be the leader of the United States Senate in 2007. (Applause.)

I appreciate Mitch's leadership, and I appreciate the leadership of
Elizabeth Dole, as well. These are two of the finest United States
Senators we have.

Laura sends her best. She is a patient woman. (Laughter.) She is
doing just fine. I'm real proud of her. She is a fabulous First Lady.
(Applause.)

Oh, there's going to be a lot of noise here at the end of the
campaign. There always is. And sometimes it's all meant to obscure the
main issues. Sometimes folks don't really want to talk about the core
issues that will affect the future of this country. I think there are
two big issues that we need to stay focused on and I know our candidates
are talking about, and they're issues in which there are big differences
of opinion. And the first issue is taxes.

There is a difference of opinion between what we ought to be doing
with your money, see. There are people in the Democrat Party who think
they can spend your money far better than you can. And we believe that
you're plenty capable of spending your own money. As a matter of fact,
we believe that when you have more of your own money in your pocket to
save, invest, or spend, all of us benefit; that the economy grows; that
hope expands; that the entrepreneurial spirit is invigorated.

And so, in times of economic difficulty, I worked with members of
the United States Senate and the United States House to pass the largest
tax relief since Ronald Reagan was President of the United States.
(Applause.) We didn't think the tax code ought to penalize marriage, so
we reduced the marriage penalty. We cut taxes for small businesses.
There's a reason why we cut taxes for small businesses -- because we
understand that 70 percent of new jobs in America are created by small
business owners. (Applause.)

We cut the taxes on capital gains and dividends, because we wanted
to encourage investment. We understand that when people invest it means
that someone is more likely to be able to find a job. We cut the taxes
on -- we doubled the child tax credit. In other words, we cut the taxes
on families with children. We put the death tax on the road to
extinction. We don't think it's fair to tax you twice, once while
you're living and once after you're dead. (Applause.) As a matter of
fact, we cut taxes on everybody who pays taxes. (Laughter.) We don't
believe in this selective tax cutting. We said, if you're going to pay
income taxes you ought to get relief.

And we had a spirited debate about whether or not the tax cuts made
sense. A lot of the Democrats in the United States Senate said, these
tax cuts are going to make the economy worse. They went around the
United States saying tax cuts don't make any sense. But they did make
sense.

We've created 6.6 million new jobs since August of 2003. This week
a new report showed that real wages grew 2.2 percent over the past 12
months. That's faster than the average for the 1990s. Because of our
pro-growth economic policies, this economy is strong. People are
working. The entrepreneurial spirit is up. People are buying homes.
Our plan worked. And our candidates have something to run on come this
November. (Applause.)

There's a difference of opinion here in Washington, and I'm going
to continue reminding people of the clear difference of opinion in this
campaign. Let me tell you what the recent -- the top leader, the
Democrat leader in the House of Representatives said recently. This is
a person who aspires to be the speaker of the House. She said, "We love
tax cuts." She actually said that. Given her record, she must be a
secret admirer. (Laughter and applause.) Over the past five years, she
and her Democrat colleagues voted against every major tax cut that we
passed. Time and time again when she had her opportunity to show her
love for tax cuts, she voted no. If this is the Democrats' idea of
love, I wouldn't want to see what hate looks like. (Laughter.)

Now they're trotting out their old lines. I'm sure Elizabeth and
Mitch will tell you what they're hearing out there. They're saying,
listen, we're just going to tax the rich. It is the same old, tired
excuse for raising taxes. It sounds good, but that's not what they
believe. Look at the record. In 1992, when they took over the White
House, and they campaigned on middle class tax cuts, when they got the
capacity to deliver on their promises, they passed one of the largest
tax increases in American history.

Raising taxes is what the Democrats want to do, make no mistake
about it. If they take over the Senate, they will run up your taxes.
Raising your taxes would hurt our economy. Raising our taxes would
diminish the entrepreneurial spirit. Raising taxes would be bad for
small business owners. Raising taxes is a Democrat idea of growing the
economy, and it won't work. The best way to keep this economy strong is
to make the tax cuts we passed permanent. (Applause.)

The other issue in this campaign is which party, which group of
leaders can keep America safe. We are at war, and it's a tough war, but
it's a war that is necessary to protect you. Our most important job,
the solemn responsibility of those of us who are honored to serve you in
Washington, D.C. is to do everything in our power to protect the
American people from further attack. (Applause.)

We face a cold-blooded enemy. You can't negotiate with these
people. You cannot hope for the best, because they are ideologues bound
by the desire to inflict damage on nations which love freedom. They
will murder the innocent. They have no conscience. And they murder to
achieve an objective, and that's what's important for our fellow
citizens to understand. It may sound far-fetched to some Americans out
there, but this group of ideologues wants to establish a caliphate, a
governing body, a -- they want to spread their ideology of hate from
Indonesia to Spain. That's what they have so declared. And they
recognize in order to do that they must inflict serious damage on
America to the point where we're willing to retreat from the Middle East
so they can topple moderate governments.

Imagine a world in which radical extremists not only topple
moderate governments so they can have territory from which to plan,
plot, and attack America and our allies, but they have the capacity to
control oil resources, which they would be more than willing to use in
order to blackmail America and our allies into further retreat. You can
imagine a circumstance in which these radicals say, we'll run up the
price of oil by denying oil on the markets unless you abandon your
allies such as Israel, or unless you further withdraw from the world.
And compound that with a nuclear Iran, and the world 20 or 30 years from
now is going to say, what happened to them in 2006? How come they
couldn't see the threat? What blinded these people in order that they
did not do their job?

One of the key issues in this election is who best sees the future
and who best has the plan to deal with it? I firmly see the threats we
face, and the best way for America to protect ourselves is to go on the
offense and to stay on the offense. (Applause.) Thank you all.

However, going on the offense is not going to be enough to protect
you. It's a part of a comprehensive strategy. You know, we've got to
be right a hundred percent of the time in protecting this homeland from
those who still want to attack, and the enemy has got to be right one
time. And, therefore, I felt it was vital that our professionals who
are in charge of protecting you have all the tools necessary to do so.
And so, right after September the 11th, we worked with Congress, in some
cases -- and in some cases, we felt like we didn't need to -- to put
tools in the hands of professionals.

One such tool was to tear down a wall that prevented law
enforcement from talking to intelligence. I know it's hard to believe,
but that's the reality of what had happened in our country; that's what
grew up to be the case. How can you protect our country, when you've
got people gathering intelligence and they can't tell the law
enforcement who are in charge of protecting you what they know?

And so after September the 11th, I went to the United States
Congress and said, let's pass what we call the Patriot Act. It was a
chance to make sure that we gave our folks on the front lines of
protecting you all the tools necessary to do so. Right after September
the 11th, both the House and the Senate overwhelmingly passed the bill,
but the bill needed to be reauthorized some years later. And when it
came up for reauthorization, Democrat members of the United States
Senate tried to kill the bill -- they, what we call here in Washington,
filibustered. They didn't want to give that tool necessary to those who
protect you.

There's just a difference of opinion. We believe we're at war and
we should give all the folks protecting you the tools necessary to do
so. Evidently, Democrats don't. As a matter of fact, the Democrat
leader, the person who aspires to be the Majority Leader in the United
States Senate, when asked about his filibuster, he said -- he proudly
proclaimed he killed the bill. And a reporter gave him a chance to
recant -- he said, no, I'm proud of that.

I don't think that's the kind of attitude we can afford, if the
biggest job we have in Washington, D.C., is to protect you.
Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed, and I was able to sign the
reauthorization of the Patriot Act, thanks to people like Mitch
McConnell and Elizabeth Dole. (Applause.)

I felt it was important that our professionals at the Central
Intelligence Agency questioned people we picked up on the battlefield,
in order to find out what they know, see. If you're at war, you need to
make sure that you get as much information as possible in order to
protect you. It's a different kind of war. We can't measure the size
of an infantry against these people; we don't go out and count the
number of airplanes they have. This is a war that requires precise
intelligence, good information, if the task is to protect you before an
attack comes.

And so, yes, sir, I sent up a program that gave our CIA
professionals the opportunity to question people, like Khalid Sheikh
Muhammed, the person our intelligence officials think is responsible for
the killings on September the 11th -- the mastermind. You could imagine
my thought processes -- they tell me they captured Khalid Sheikh
Muhammed; my first question was, what does he know; does he know
anything else that we need to know?

And so as a result of a Supreme Court ruling, I took this bill to
the United States Senate. The Court said work with the Senate to set up
a military tribunal. I felt it was important for us to give these
killers the justice that they had denied others. But as a result of
that bill, we also worked with the Senate to put legislation in place
that would make it clear to our professionals that they could
interrogate.

I view this as a clarifying moment for the country, a chance for
Republicans, Democrats and independents to learn firsthand the
differences of opinion we have in Washington, D.C., because 70 percent
of the people in the United States Senate who call themselves Democrat
voted against giving our professionals the tools necessary to question
people so we can prevent attacks. These are fine people, they're
patriotic people, but they're wrong. They don't understand the stakes
in the war on terror. In order to protect America, we must stay on the
offense against the enemy and give our professionals the tools necessary
to protect you. (Applause.)

It is interesting what's happened to the Democrat Party. I'm
reading a lot of history these days, and I read about Franklin
Roosevelt, who was strong in his confrontation of Nazi Germany and
Imperial Japan. His strength of character, his vision helped set the
course for victory in World War II -- strong wartime leader. It was a
Democrat, President Harry Truman who confronted the rise of Soviet
communism, and he set the course for victory in the Cold War. John F.
Kennedy declared America's commitment to, in his words, "pay any price
and bear any burden" in the defense of freedom. These Presidents
understood the challenges of their time and were willing to confront
those challenges with strong leadership. And at the same time, they had
great faith in the power of liberty and freedom.

And then something began to change. In 1972, the Democrats
nominated a presidential candidate who declared, "I don't like
communism, but I don't think we have any great obligation to save the
world from it." It was a -- it began a slow shift of philosophy in the
Democrat Party. A few years later, at the height of the Cold War, a
Democrat President told the country that America had gotten over
"inordinate fear of communism." In the mid-1980s, a senator from
Massachusetts, whom Democrats would later choose as their presidential
nominee, declared that Americans should "abandon the kind of thinking
that suggests we can gain a meaningful advantage over the Soviet Union
in the nuclear arms race."

In other words, this is a different attitude. The philosophy of
that party began to shift. Fortunately, in the 1980s, America had a
Republican President who saw things differently. Ronald Reagan
declared, "My theory of the Cold War is that we win and they lose."
(Applause.)

By this time the Democrat Party did not share his optimism, or his
strategy for victory. See, they'd gotten to the point where they didn't
think that we could win. Many of their leaders fought the Reagan
defense buildup, they fought his strategic defense initiative, they
opposed the liberation of Grenada. They didn't like America's support
for freedom fighters resisting Soviet puppet regimes. They heaped scorn
on him. They mocked him when he called the Soviet Union an "evil
empire." Despite all the opposition that the President faced from the
Democrats, he didn't waver. He stood for what he believed. And history
will remember Ronald Reagan as the man who brought down the Soviet Union
and won the Cold War. (Applause.)

And now we're involved in what I have called the great ideological
struggle of the 21st century. It's a struggle between the forces of
liberty and the forces of a tyrannical vision that does not believe in
freedom. It's a struggle between moderates who want to live in peace in
the Middle East and extremists and radicals who will use murder to
achieve their objective.

This is going to be a long struggle, but in order to prevail, it
requires perseverance and determination, and a strong belief in the
power of liberty to conquer the ideology of hate. The Democrat Party,
that has evolved from one that was confident in its capacity to help
deal with the problems of the world to one that is doubting, today still
has an approach of doubt and defeat. They believe that the war in Iraq
is a diversion from the war on terror. I believe the war in Iraq is a
central part in defeating the terrorists, in order that we protect
ourselves. (Applause.)

If you don't believe me, and if the citizens of our country don't
believe me, then they ought to at least listen to Osama bin Laden --
(laughter) -- and the number two man in al Qaeda, Mr. Zawahiri, both of
whom have made it perfectly clear that Iraq is a central part of their
strategy to establish their caliphate. They believe America is weak,
and it's just a matter of time before we will lose our nerve and abandon
that young democracy in the heart of the Middle East. That's what they
firmly believe, and they have said so, and stated it clearly.

The same Democrats that doubt and don't believe this is a part of
the war on terror also argue that we should pull out our troops before
the job is done. The person I ran against for President said there
ought to be a date certain for withdrawal. That means it doesn't matter
what's happening on the ground, it just means, get out. You've had a
leader in the House say, well, the best way to deal with this is to put
our troops on an island some 5,000 miles away from Iraq. There's all
kinds of difference of opinions, but none of them are, let's do the hard
work necessary to secure America.

We have a difference of opinion. And that's why I have said that
the Democrat Party, the party that -- where some leaders have said we
shouldn't spend another dime on Iraq, others have said get out now;
others said get out in a couple of months -- that's why they are the
party of cut and run. (Applause.)

It's a difference of opinion, but it's a fundamental issue in this
campaign. The voters out there need to ask the question, which
political party will support the brave men and women who wear our
uniform when they do their job of protecting America? Which political
party is willing to give our professionals the tools necessary to
protect the American people? Which political party has a strategy for
victory in this war on terror?

Listen, I fully understand it's a tough fight in Iraq. I know it,
you know it, and our troops know it. Last week -- or earlier this week,
I spoke with the Prime Minister of Iraq, Prime Minister Maliki, and we
discussed the violence in his country. I told him I was -- I was amazed
at how tough the Iraqis are when it comes to violence. Think about
that. They haven't abandoned their hopes for a government of, by, and
for the people; 12 million people voted, they still long to live in a
free society. Yet they're putting up with unspeakable violence.

There's a reason why the violence is increasing. One reason is
that our forces, coalition and Iraqi forces are focused on operations to
bring security in Baghdad. In other words, we're on the move. We're
confronting those who would like to sow sectarian violence. We're
confronting the criminals who are taking advantage of the situation.
We're confronting the militias who are harming innocent people. We're
operating in some of the city's most violent neighborhoods to disrupt
and bring to justice al Qaeda and IED makers and death squad leaders.
We're engaging the enemies, and they're putting up a tough fight.

Another reason why is the terrorists are trying to influence public
opinion around the world and right here in the United States. They
carry video cameras, film their atrocities, email images and video clips
to Middle Eastern cable networks like Al-Jazeera, and opinion leaders
throughout the West. They operate web sites where they say their goal
is to, "carry out a media war that is parallel to the military war."

Our goal in Iraq is clear and it's unchanging: a country that can
sustain itself, a country that can govern itself, a country that can
defend itself, and a country which will be an ally in the war against
these extremists. Our strategy is threefold: to help rebuild that
country, to help the political process move forward, and to help the
Iraqis stand up security forces that are capable of defeating the enemy
themselves. (Applause.)

Our tactics are constantly changing. I talk to our generals who
are in charge of these operations, and my message to them is: Whatever
you need we'll give you; and whatever tactics you think work on the
ground, you put in place. Our goal hasn't changed, but the tactics are
constantly adjusting to an enemy which is brutal and violent.

My message to the United States of America is: Victory in Iraq is
vital for the security of a generation of Americans who are coming up.
And so we will stay in Iraq, we will fight in Iraq and we will win in
Iraq. (Applause.)

Thank you. Sit down, now. Thank you. I'm not through yet.
(Laughter.) I'm almost through. (Laughter.) The waiter is signaling
to me, you know, giving me one of these things. (Laughter.)

I want to tell you one other thing we believe in, and I believe
it's a difference between the philosophies of our parties -- is that I
believe in the power of liberty to transform regions and countries, and
yield the peace we want. That's what I believe. I believe this is an
ideological struggle, and the way you defeat an ideology of hate is with
an ideology of hope. I believe in the universality of freedom. I
believe there's an Almighty, and I believe a great gift of that Almighty
to every man, woman and child on the Earth is freedom. (Applause.)

I believe people -- I believe America should never condemn anybody
to a society that does not embrace freedom. I believe in freedom so
much that I wasn't surprised when 12 million people defied car bombers
and said, I want to be free. And I believe free societies yield the
peace we want.

A story that I share all the time with people is the story about my
relationship with the Prime Minister of Japan -- former Prime Minister
now, Prime Minister Koizumi. You might remember, the Prime Minister and
I went down to Elvis' place -- (laughter) -- in Memphis, Tennessee. I
went down there because I'd never been. (Laughter.) He went down there
-- and asked me to take him down there because he liked Elvis.
(Laughter.)

But I wanted to tell a story to the American people. You see, my
dad fought the Japanese. They were the sworn enemy of the United
States. And many of your relatives did the same thing. They attacked
us; we responded with the full force and might of the United States.
Kids signed up, many didn't come home. They volunteered to fight for
our freedom, just like the kids are doing today, volunteering to fight
for our freedom.

One of them was an 18-year-old Navy fighter pilot. I find it
really interesting that his son was on Air Force One with the Prime
Minister of the former enemy, talking about the peace. See, going down
to Memphis from Washington, we didn't spend a lot of time analyzing
Elvis' songs. (Laughter.) We talked about North Korea, and how Japan
and the United States could work together to convince the leader of
North Korea to give up his nuclear weapons ambitions. We talked about
the fact that Japan had a thousand troops in Iraq.

See, Prime Minister Koizumi knows what I know, that when you find a
young democracy that's battling against extremists, it's in our
interests to help that young democracy succeed. It's in the interests
of not only this generation, who has got the charge of protecting
ourselves from terrorists, but from future generations, to help
democracies flourish. He understands what I know, that the reason we're
talking about the peace is because something happened between World War
II, when Japan was the sworn enemy of the United States, and 2006, when
they're flying from Washington to Memphis on Air Force One. And what
happened was Japan adopted a Japanese-style democracy.

The lesson is, liberty has the capacity to change an enemy into an
ally. And some day American Presidents will be sitting down with duly
elected leaders from the Middle East, talking about keeping the peace,
and a generation of Americans will be better off for it.